conworldfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Housekeeping 2: Electric Boogaloo
Now that an organized effort has taken shape, I am going to re-propose Fizzyflapjack's ideas for basic quality control, albeit with some edits (highlighted in bold) #New pages use the template until the page reaches the requirements for the full page title. ##Pages remain in the candidacy period until they reach 4,000 bytes in size (as this is Conworlds and not Wikipedia, there should be no reason it should not be able to be developed that large). ##Pages serve a purpose and are not short segments which can be easily added to larger pages. ##Pages which do not meet these requirements be deleted in their candidacy period after 1 month of no further development. #Upon the completion of the candidacy period, the template is removed, and that page enjoys full page rights. ##Full pages cannot be altered without the explicit consent of the author. ##If the author is not active or does not respond within 2 months of notification, the page becomes subject to Administrator management. #Pages created before these new policies will be deleted if they do not meet the requirements within 1 month after the final vote on this matter. First proposal Voting Aye Nay Abstention Deliberation Don't mind me, I just want to say I am fascinated by these proceedings, and the depth to which this discontent apparently extends. But, what are you going to do? Go back and tag or delete the thousands of articles that don't meet the requirements? And what about articles that technically meet the 4,000 byte mandate, but don't really have a lot of "content"? I know I do that a lot. It's entirely possible to create an article with an infobox or a navbox and little else, and still have it be over 4,000 bytes. Additionally, what is the impetus of this effort? Does it really matter whether or not the articles are subjectively "quality" or not? Won't mandatory requirements for articles scare away people who just want to put a few thoughts down and might eventually become more substantial contributors? Since there aren't really any limits on the content hosted here, is there any reason to restrict content creation? Again, don't pay any attention to me, but the laissez faire atmosphere here is one of the things I like about this place. Woogers - talk ( ) 15:45, January 4, 2016 (UTC) :: ::Fizzy's original proposal was 5,000 bytes and was dismissed as being "too excessive." Also, this is not meant to be a final solution to the issue we bring up but rather as a starting baseline for quality standards. :: ::Do you think articles like this represent the wiki well? :: ::This is what sandboxes are for. :: ::Other wikis, such as the Creepypasta Wiki, have quality standards. I don't see why we shouldn't either. And what we propose is no where near as strict as the rules on that site are. [[User:Bowwow828| ]] [[User talk:Bowwow828| ]] 18:35, January 4, 2016 (UTC) :::Like I said, don't pay any attention to what I think. I'm not a stakeholder of any importance here. It's obvious that you care very, very deeply about this, enough to get this discussion going, and I support such discourse. I am just of the opinion that sometimes, standards can have effects other than what was originally intended, and that that should be considered when engaging in such discussions. Woogers - talk ( ) 18:53, January 4, 2016 (UTC)